The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Big Dog

Silver
Posts: 1205
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Big Dog » Sun May 04, 2014 11:31 pm

This poster says I must not understand USC, since I'm comparing it to the likes of toilet bowl Fordham.


How do you get that from only one sentence?

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby BigZuck » Sun May 04, 2014 11:33 pm

Princetonlaw68 wrote:I'm going to post 1 separate thread, just to show you it doesn't only exist within this thread. This thread was on the first page of "choosing a law school."

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=228658


Here's a post from that thread that pretty nicely displays my point:

From cahwc12:

"I'm not recommending he go anywhere except insofar as he's totally unwilling to consider alternatives. He shouldn't go at all and I've stressed that. But NU at sticker is still a better bet than either USC or Fordham with six figures of debt.

There's an error on LST's site on Fordham that I noticed this morning, and maybe that's why you are thinking their numbers are the same. Fordham employs a significant number of its graduates whereas USC doesn't, and that's why Fordham looks equal when it is really worse. But I'm not defending either of these schools as good options in case that wasn't clear. They are both terrible options. USC is not a bad school, but Fordham is. Both are ridiculously expensive at sticker, and OP isn't providing the correct numbers for at least fordham even though he says they are correct."



Do you need more?


Kind of amusing to pull that portion of a post outside of the entire context of what he was saying in that thread but now I see what you're doing.

Well trolled friend.

I think we've done our part here BK.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 11:38 pm

BigZuck wrote:
Princetonlaw68 wrote:I'm going to post 1 separate thread, just to show you it doesn't only exist within this thread. This thread was on the first page of "choosing a law school."

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=228658


Here's a post from that thread that pretty nicely displays my point:

From cahwc12:

"I'm not recommending he go anywhere except insofar as he's totally unwilling to consider alternatives. He shouldn't go at all and I've stressed that. But NU at sticker is still a better bet than either USC or Fordham with six figures of debt.

There's an error on LST's site on Fordham that I noticed this morning, and maybe that's why you are thinking their numbers are the same. Fordham employs a significant number of its graduates whereas USC doesn't, and that's why Fordham looks equal when it is really worse. But I'm not defending either of these schools as good options in case that wasn't clear. They are both terrible options. USC is not a bad school, but Fordham is. Both are ridiculously expensive at sticker, and OP isn't providing the correct numbers for at least fordham even though he says they are correct."



Do you need more?


Kind of amusing to pull that portion of a post outside of the entire context of what he was saying in that thread but now I see what you're doing.

Well trolled friend.

I think we've done our part here BK.


You're a joke. "Give me evidence." Ok here it is. (Gives pieces of evidence, one even showing that you yourself believed in this phenomenon that you claim somehow doesn't exist). "haha, I think we've done our job here bk." Don't ask for evidence if you won't accept it once it's given. You're wrong and that's it. No need to cry about it.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun May 04, 2014 11:40 pm

I don't think you're doing a very good job of reading for context. I still don't see any evidence of some kind of vendetta against Fordham/white knighting of USC, and frankly, your vehemence on the subject just seems odd.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 11:44 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't think you're doing a very good job of reading for context. I still don't see any evidence of some kind of vendetta against Fordham/white knighting of USC, and frankly, your vehemence on the subject just seems odd.



If I'm wrong can someone please explain to me better how I am wrong. That post said within it yes, they're both bad, but USC is an ok school, Fordham is a bad school. Convince me beyond just saying I'm taking this out of context. How am I wrong. How am I wrong about bigzuck's post supporting my point? You don't need to necessarily call it a vendetta, just a general view of positivity towards USC and a negative view toward Fordham. USC= ok Fordham = bad

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 11:45 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't think you're doing a very good job of reading for context. I still don't see any evidence of some kind of vendetta against Fordham/white knighting of USC, and frankly, your vehemence on the subject just seems odd.



I was done with this and bigzuck kept it going, when he's the first one who responded with a post that seemed to suggest a more favorable view toward USC than Fordham. I found this ironic, so I responded.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Sun May 04, 2014 11:48 pm

what about this post?:


As to why USC is better, COL is slightly lower (although still very expensive), quality of life will be objectively much higher, and your chances at a real job are about 10% better. Combine this with the fact that they will be the same price makes it a no-brainer (ASSUMING YOU PLAN TO DISREGARD ANY POSSIBILITY OF RETAKING, DELAYING, OR NOT CONSIDERING NORTHWESTERN AT STICKER). Fordham is a bad school and it's an expensive school. USC is an OK school and an expensive school. OK > Bad

Your best options are:

(1) Don't go at all.
(2) Go to Northwestern at sticker.
(3) Go to USC
(4) Go to Cornell at sticker.
(5) Go to Fordham

Have you definitely tried using USC money to get anything out of Cornell? Because then you can use Cornell money to get something out of Northwestern. With your numbers, a few people last year were able to get tuition discounts from Cornell, so I think if you persist a bit more, you can get something out of them. I also don't think retaking will significantly improve your position because your GPA locks you out of everything except maybe NYU, barring a truly exceptional score.


This is from cahwc





Surely I'm not taking that one out of context...




The COA for USC was 110k, but the COA for Fordham was 60k.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun May 04, 2014 11:51 pm

Princetonlaw68 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't think you're doing a very good job of reading for context. I still don't see any evidence of some kind of vendetta against Fordham/white knighting of USC, and frankly, your vehemence on the subject just seems odd.



If I'm wrong can someone please explain to me better how I am wrong. That post said within it yes, they're both bad, but USC is an ok school, Fordham is a bad school. Convince me beyond just saying I'm taking this out of context. How am I wrong. How am I wrong about bigzuck's post supporting my point? You don't need to necessarily call it a vendetta, just a general view of positivity towards USC and a negative view toward Fordham. USC= ok Fordham = bad

But the whole point of the entire post was that both were terrible options because they're terribly expensive, and USC was identified as better than Fordham solely based on the fact that Fordham hires more students into school-funded jobs.

As for the other post, when was it written and what were the original poster's goals? Taking these comments entirely out of context again isn't very convincing.

User avatar
cotiger

Gold
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby cotiger » Mon May 05, 2014 12:00 am

yo pl68 where're you headed next year? jw.

bk1

Diamond
Posts: 20072
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby bk1 » Mon May 05, 2014 12:03 am

For the love of all that is holy, please learn how to use the quote function or just link a post.

Princetonlaw68 wrote:If I'm wrong can someone please explain to me better how I am wrong. That post said within it yes, they're both bad, but USC is an ok school, Fordham is a bad school. Convince me beyond just saying I'm taking this out of context. How am I wrong. How am I wrong about bigzuck's post supporting my point? You don't need to necessarily call it a vendetta, just a general view of positivity towards USC and a negative view toward Fordham. USC= ok Fordham = bad

Just because one person thinks that does not mean that there is some massive conspiracy against Fordham.

And if you actually read his post, his reasoning that USC was better than Fordham was for 3 reasons: (1) CA location and (2) USC being 10% better at elite outcomes, and (3) SFJs. So the first one is subjective making it more of an opinion rather than a fact. The second one also overstates the difference in recent times, but it is factual that USC has consistently been 5-10% better than Fordham at placing into elite outcomes (biglaw+clerks). Whether that 5-10% is small enough so that you would consider them peers, but large enough for cahwc12 to consider USC > Fordham is largely irrelevant to the fact that the gap exists. It's not like cahwc12 said "I know that USC has identical percentages to Fordham, but clearly USC is a better school." But the big thing is that he based a lot of his analysis on the SFJs (which was a mistake because he got the data wrong) which he admitted was a misread of the data later on in the thread and then says they are both bad schools. So really, this one poster doesn't even do a great job of showing hatred for Fordham.

Generally speaking, USC has historically been a nonnegligible amount better than Fordham since post-2005 (that is until the 2013 data which shows Fordham with a slight lead, but that is very new data so it's not like you can judge people for not including it when they couldn't have known about it). Is it close enough to call it an employment "peer"? That's probably a hard line to draw. Some are going to say yes, some are going to say no. You're probably not unjustified in going either way really so I don't understand the vitriol at people who slightly disagree with you on something that is mostly a fuzzy line.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Mon May 05, 2014 12:06 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Princetonlaw68 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:I don't think you're doing a very good job of reading for context. I still don't see any evidence of some kind of vendetta against Fordham/white knighting of USC, and frankly, your vehemence on the subject just seems odd.



If I'm wrong can someone please explain to me better how I am wrong. That post said within it yes, they're both bad, but USC is an ok school, Fordham is a bad school. Convince me beyond just saying I'm taking this out of context. How am I wrong. How am I wrong about bigzuck's post supporting my point? You don't need to necessarily call it a vendetta, just a general view of positivity towards USC and a negative view toward Fordham. USC= ok Fordham = bad

But the whole point of the entire post was that both were terrible options because they're terribly expensive, and USC was identified as better than Fordham solely based on the fact that Fordham hires more students into school-funded jobs.

As for the other post, when was it written and what were the original poster's goals? Taking these comments entirely out of context again isn't very convincing.



See, this is where I completely disagree with you. I never said that everyone loves USC, USC is the new T14 in the eyes of TLSers. I said it's viewed more favorably than it should be, given its stats, and Fordham is viewed less favorably than USC. Why? Preftige or past employment stats that are from 4 years ago or something. I really don't know why. There's some ideas in this thread for why. That poster is one of the many people who, for whatever reason, sees USC as just "better" than Fordham. Why? Because it is.

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10256
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby jbagelboy » Mon May 05, 2014 12:08 am

wth happened in this thread?

USC is way better than Fordham. I would probably take a full ride at USC (or close to it, like $45K/year) if I was LA-or-bust and didn't get solid money at a T13. I would never go to Fordham, under any condition. Although for someone else, if they wanted NYC firm work, Fordham would make more sense than USC at equal cost (but no one should attend either school with the illusion of getting a job at a prestigious market paying law firm).

As others have said, I'm not sure the two schools can be considered peers. And past employment stats matter. You can't look at one years' data and draw authoritative conclusions. This isn't about prestige.

Princetonlaw -- what are you trying to accomplish here?

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby BigZuck » Mon May 05, 2014 12:10 am

Princetonlaw68 wrote:Surely I'm not taking that one out of context...




The COA for USC was 110k, but the COA for Fordham was 60k.


Relevant:

cahwc12 wrote:If you're truly convinced that Fordham will only cost you $60k all in, then I think most would agree that it's a reasonable investment and that you should go for it. For posterity, would you mind PMing me the data you're basing that off of though?

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Mon May 05, 2014 12:11 am

bk1 wrote:For the love of all that is holy, please learn how to use the quote function or just link a post.

Princetonlaw68 wrote:If I'm wrong can someone please explain to me better how I am wrong. That post said within it yes, they're both bad, but USC is an ok school, Fordham is a bad school. Convince me beyond just saying I'm taking this out of context. How am I wrong. How am I wrong about bigzuck's post supporting my point? You don't need to necessarily call it a vendetta, just a general view of positivity towards USC and a negative view toward Fordham. USC= ok Fordham = bad

Just because one person thinks that does not mean that there is some massive conspiracy against Fordham.

And if you actually read his post, his reasoning that USC was better than Fordham was for 3 reasons: (1) CA location and (2) USC being 10% better at elite outcomes, and (3) SFJs. So the first one is subjective making it more of an opinion rather than a fact. The second one also overstates the difference in recent times, but it is factual that USC has consistently been 5-10% better than Fordham at placing into elite outcomes (biglaw+clerks). Whether that 5-10% is small enough so that you would consider them peers, but large enough for cahwc12 to consider USC > Fordham is largely irrelevant to the fact that the gap exists. It's not like cahwc12 said "I know that USC has identical percentages to Fordham, but clearly USC is a better school." But the big thing is that he based a lot of his analysis on the SFJs (which was a mistake because he got the data wrong) which he admitted was a misread of the data later on in the thread and then says they are both bad schools. So really, this one poster doesn't even do a great job of showing hatred for Fordham.

Generally speaking, USC has historically been a nonnegligible amount better than Fordham since post-2005 (that is until the 2013 data which shows Fordham with a slight lead, but that is very new data so it's not like you can judge people for not including it when they couldn't have known about it). Is it close enough to call it an employment "peer"? That's probably a hard line to draw. Some are going to say yes, some are going to say no. You're probably not unjustified in going either way really so I don't understand the vitriol at people who slightly disagree with you on something that is mostly a fuzzy line.



It's been less than 5 lately. That was the point of this thread. That tiny amount is mitigated by the fact that the students there are higher quality. This is going around in circles. If you don't believe that students with higher gpas and lsats perform better, that's great. I don't agree with that. Don't wanna start this whole thread over though, so I'm out. I think we've all said everything we need to say, and this has been attacked from every angle. If you want to pay me, I'll go find every post that supports my point on this whole site. It would take a long time though, and I wouldn't work for less than 30 an hr. Bigzuck's statement supported my point as well. I think that's clear. I believed this info needed to be out there, and I was bored and wanted to occupy my time. Both of my goals have been accomplished. There's no need for me to post anymore. Pce out

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby BigZuck » Mon May 05, 2014 12:12 am

Also:

Princetonlaw68 wrote:You're a joke. "Give me evidence." Ok here it is. (Gives pieces of evidence, one even showing that you yourself believed in this phenomenon that you claim somehow doesn't exist). "haha, I think we've done our job here bk." Don't ask for evidence if you won't accept it once it's given. You're wrong and that's it. No need to cry about it.


Relevant:

BigZuck wrote:I had two things in mind when I made that post: 1) I assumed you were doing that new 0L thing where they say USC is in decline based on one year of data and UCLA is the new, undisputed King of LA and 2) saying you'll have an appreciably better shot at placing higher in the class by attending Fordham is retarded.

I wasn't saying anything about Fordham being shit and USC being the shit.

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10256
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby jbagelboy » Mon May 05, 2014 12:14 am

Princetonlaw68 wrote:
bk1 wrote:For the love of all that is holy, please learn how to use the quote function or just link a post.

Princetonlaw68 wrote:If I'm wrong can someone please explain to me better how I am wrong. That post said within it yes, they're both bad, but USC is an ok school, Fordham is a bad school. Convince me beyond just saying I'm taking this out of context. How am I wrong. How am I wrong about bigzuck's post supporting my point? You don't need to necessarily call it a vendetta, just a general view of positivity towards USC and a negative view toward Fordham. USC= ok Fordham = bad

Just because one person thinks that does not mean that there is some massive conspiracy against Fordham.

And if you actually read his post, his reasoning that USC was better than Fordham was for 3 reasons: (1) CA location and (2) USC being 10% better at elite outcomes, and (3) SFJs. So the first one is subjective making it more of an opinion rather than a fact. The second one also overstates the difference in recent times, but it is factual that USC has consistently been 5-10% better than Fordham at placing into elite outcomes (biglaw+clerks). Whether that 5-10% is small enough so that you would consider them peers, but large enough for cahwc12 to consider USC > Fordham is largely irrelevant to the fact that the gap exists. It's not like cahwc12 said "I know that USC has identical percentages to Fordham, but clearly USC is a better school." But the big thing is that he based a lot of his analysis on the SFJs (which was a mistake because he got the data wrong) which he admitted was a misread of the data later on in the thread and then says they are both bad schools. So really, this one poster doesn't even do a great job of showing hatred for Fordham.

Generally speaking, USC has historically been a nonnegligible amount better than Fordham since post-2005 (that is until the 2013 data which shows Fordham with a slight lead, but that is very new data so it's not like you can judge people for not including it when they couldn't have known about it). Is it close enough to call it an employment "peer"? That's probably a hard line to draw. Some are going to say yes, some are going to say no. You're probably not unjustified in going either way really so I don't understand the vitriol at people who slightly disagree with you on something that is mostly a fuzzy line.



It's been less than 5 lately. That was the point of this thread. That tiny amount is mitigated by the fact that the students there are higher quality. This is going around in circles. If you don't believe that students with higher gpas and lsats perform better, that's great. I don't agree with that. Don't wanna start this whole thread over though, so I'm out. I think we've all said everything we need to say, and this has been attacked from every angle. If you want to pay me, I'll go find every post that supports my point on this whole site. It would take a long time though, and I wouldn't work for less than 30 an hr. Bigzuck's statement supported my point as well. I think that's clear. I believed this info needed to be out there, and I was bored and wanted to occupy my time. Both of my goals have been accomplished. There's no need for me to post anymore. Pce out


you're a strange chap

User avatar
cotiger

Gold
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby cotiger » Mon May 05, 2014 12:17 am

jbagelboy wrote:
Princetonlaw68 wrote:

It's been less than 5 lately. That was the point of this thread. That tiny amount is mitigated by the fact that the students there are higher quality. This is going around in circles. If you don't believe that students with higher gpas and lsats perform better, that's great. I don't agree with that. Don't wanna start this whole thread over though, so I'm out. I think we've all said everything we need to say, and this has been attacked from every angle. If you want to pay me, I'll go find every post that supports my point on this whole site. It would take a long time though, and I wouldn't work for less than 30 an hr. Bigzuck's statement supported my point as well. I think that's clear. I believed this info needed to be out there, and I was bored and wanted to occupy my time. Both of my goals have been accomplished. There's no need for me to post anymore. Pce out


you're a strange chap


Emu, sfrost, now princetonlaw. We've had some odd new posters lately.

User avatar
UnicornHunter

Diamond
Posts: 13505
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby UnicornHunter » Mon May 05, 2014 12:18 am

cotiger wrote:yo pl68 where're you headed next year? jw.


+1

User avatar
jbagelboy

Diamond
Posts: 10256
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby jbagelboy » Mon May 05, 2014 12:25 am

cotiger wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Princetonlaw68 wrote:

It's been less than 5 lately. That was the point of this thread. That tiny amount is mitigated by the fact that the students there are higher quality. This is going around in circles. If you don't believe that students with higher gpas and lsats perform better, that's great. I don't agree with that. Don't wanna start this whole thread over though, so I'm out. I think we've all said everything we need to say, and this has been attacked from every angle. If you want to pay me, I'll go find every post that supports my point on this whole site. It would take a long time though, and I wouldn't work for less than 30 an hr. Bigzuck's statement supported my point as well. I think that's clear. I believed this info needed to be out there, and I was bored and wanted to occupy my time. Both of my goals have been accomplished. There's no need for me to post anymore. Pce out


you're a strange chap


Emu, sfrost, now princetonlaw. We've had some odd new posters lately.


it's a weird time of year bro. sadly, the trolls used to be kind of funny, like Dre. now they are just kind of immature without a decent schtick. tbf princetonlaw wasn't really offensive here, just... unnecessary.

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby BigZuck » Mon May 05, 2014 12:30 am

jbagelboy wrote:tbf princetonlaw wasn't really offensive here, just... unnecessary.


Relevant:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=228421

My only question now is: Will this thread get BKed before it gets Moused, or Moused before it gets BKed...

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Mon May 05, 2014 12:48 am

jbagelboy wrote:wth happened in this thread?

USC is way better than Fordham. I would probably take a full ride at USC (or close to it, like $45K/year) if I was LA-or-bust and didn't get solid money at a T13. I would never go to Fordham, under any condition. Although for someone else, if they wanted NYC firm work, Fordham would make more sense than USC at equal cost (but no one should attend either school with the illusion of getting a job at a prestigious market paying law firm).

As others have said, I'm not sure the two schools can be considered peers. And past employment stats matter. You can't look at one years' data and draw authoritative conclusions. This isn't about prestige.

Princetonlaw -- what are you trying to accomplish here?



Thank you for posting this. See guys... I'm not crazy. People think this. (Even though if we do the past 3 years rule what I say holds). I'm actually done with this thread after this post though. I couldn't help myself here. Sorry for going against my word. Actually done with this thread now. You can all post as you wish but I will not be responding to anything because this has become entirely circular.

Princetonlaw68

Bronze
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:35 pm

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Princetonlaw68 » Mon May 05, 2014 12:53 am

BigZuck wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:tbf princetonlaw wasn't really offensive here, just... unnecessary.


Relevant:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=228421

My only question now is: Will this thread get BKed before it gets Moused, or Moused before it gets BKed...



(not part of the thread, you can split this up if you want.)


Bigzuck: Passes up t14s to go to ut and strikes out. Makes fun of other people for doing tiny inconsequential things that could be stupid, though obviously completely meaningless. coolbro

User avatar
cron1834

Gold
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby cron1834 » Mon May 05, 2014 12:57 am

Princetonlaw68 wrote: I'm actually done with this thread after this post though. I couldn't help myself here. Sorry for going against my word. Actually done with this thread now. You can all post as you wish but I will not be responding to anything because this has become entirely circular.

5 mins later:
Princetonlaw68 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:tbf princetonlaw wasn't really offensive here, just... unnecessary.


Relevant:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=228421

My only question now is: Will this thread get BKed before it gets Moused, or Moused before it gets BKed...



(not part of the thread, you can split this up if you want.)


Bigzuck: Passes up t14s to go to ut and strikes out. Makes fun of other people for doing tiny inconsequential things that could be stupid, though obviously completely meaningless. coolbro


:roll: :lol:

BigZuck

Diamond
Posts: 11731
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby BigZuck » Mon May 05, 2014 1:04 am

Princetonlaw68 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:tbf princetonlaw wasn't really offensive here, just... unnecessary.


Relevant:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=228421

My only question now is: Will this thread get BKed before it gets Moused, or Moused before it gets BKed...



(not part of the thread, you can split this up if you want.)


Bigzuck: Passes up t14s to go to ut and strikes out. Makes fun of other people for doing tiny inconsequential things that could be stupid, though obviously completely meaningless. coolbro


I don't think I have been in law school long enough to say that I have struck out yet.

Also, relevant:

BigZuck wrote:My only question now is: Will this thread get BKed before it gets Moused, or Moused before it gets BKed...

Scuppers

New
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:29 am

Re: The Issue with USC vs. Fordham (GW, BU, BC, etc)

Postby Scuppers » Mon May 05, 2014 4:42 am

jbagelboy wrote:
USC is way better than Fordham. I would probably take a full ride at USC (or close to it, like $45K/year) if I was LA-or-bust and didn't get solid money at a T13. I would never go to Fordham, under any condition.


"Way better" by what metric, love of Snoop and Dre?

USC and Fordham at near full ride is defensible for people who want LA and NYC, respectively.



Return to “Choosing a Law School?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests